Just remember that OSX (that means including Preview, iPhoto and Aperture) does not yet support RAW for the Lumix G cameras. So you are OK if you stay with .jpg.

Whilst I have Aperture 2, I rarely use it. I guess I need to get trained up to figure out whether it can improve my workflow. The neat thing is that it can access your iPhoto library. To be honest iPhoto is more than a match for most of my very amateur needs.

I'm not a Photoshop user either, but I do have Acorn- http://flyingmeat.com/acorn/ - which solves most of my humble needs. If you are cash strapped, you might try Acorn (there is a free version) and stay with iPhoto for image library management.

Stupid fool that I am, I will undoubtedly upgrade to Aperture 3.

Thanks.

Unless something has gone horribly wrong, I generally stick with the JPEGs. I have the camera set up to store the RAW and the JPEG just in case I do something stupid with the settings!

The bundled SilkyPix does a decent enough job of allowing fiddling with the RAW before saving as JPEG. The UI is pretty horrible, so 'built in' handling of the GH1 RAW files would certainly be a bonus!

I'll take a look at Acorn -- though to me Acorn means BBC Model B and Archimedes! Elite and Chucky Egg FTW!

As I've recently bought a fancy DSLR (well, technically it's not a DSLR as it's a Micro 4/3rds Lumix GH1), I'm now wondering if I should upgrade iPhoto to Aperture 3.

It may very well be worth it. I'm by no means a professional photographer but one of the reasons for my Mac purchase was Aperture. Of course iPhoto has improved significantly since then too so maybe not as easy to justify now. This looks like a massive update so old justifications go out the window.

Quote:

I have an ancient copy of Photoshop that I find a bit of a pain for retouching (usually removing things from photos, or stitching panoramas), and iPhoto for all the basic stuff.

The old version of Aperture was nothing like Photoshop and could best be described as a archiveing and light touch up program.

Quote:

So, what benefit would Aperture 3 give me as a fairly new and inexperienced hobbyist photographer?

Err nobody has Aperture 3 yet, so you won't get a valid answer. Instead look at the docs Apple has. That being said I see it as a worthwhile investment if you have a lot of pics to manage.

OK - i guess I'd consider myself an "advanced amateur" photographer/photoshop-er and am still not certain what I gain in Aperture 3 over my current iPhoto library.

Greater variety in organizing and storing your photo's. Some pretty good editing tools that are non-destructive and also keep multiple versions of your files without consuming all of your disk space.

I do 95% of my editing in Aperture combined with Nik Softwares excellent plugins. Aperture allows me to quickly organize my files after a shoot, process them and move on. I'd rather be taking photo's instead of jockying Photoshop, so it's a great tool - YMMV

Do you have a DSLR and shoot RAW? Aperture is primarily a tool for managing RAW files first and foremost. It will manage JPEG, but it really shines when you shoot RAW.

Quote:

And...how easy it to import my nearly 11K images into Aperture 3 (or do I need to import them at all - can it access my existing iPhoto library?)

Trivial. You can import the entire library or do it album, event or selections at a time. I recommend doing it in little bunches so you can update the metadata as you go (location, your name, basic description of the shoot or event, copyright, etc.)

Also, when you install Aperture, an Aperture library media browser is added. So any program that shows your iPhoto library, will gain a new entry for your Aperture library. You can also open each library in the other program and pull pictures back and forth between iPhoto and Aperture that way.

Download the trial and try it out. Watch the tutorial video's - they are excellent. There are also some really great Apple provided podcasts, as well as other video podcasts on running Aperture (version 2, of course but the basics should translate). Finally there are awesome sites like Lynda.com that have excellent training as well.

Unless something has gone horribly wrong, I generally stick with the JPEGs. I have the camera set up to store the RAW and the JPEG just in case I do something stupid with the settings

Shooting .jpg is going horribly wrong! Of course your software has to be able to work with the RAW files from the camera. This may not mean much to you now but it will down the road when your skills increase.

Quote:

The bundled SilkyPix does a decent enough job of allowing fiddling with the RAW before saving as JPEG. The UI is pretty horrible, so 'built in' handling of the GH1 RAW files would certainly be a bonus!

I'll take a look at Acorn -- though to me Acorn means BBC Model B and Archimedes! Elite and Chucky Egg FTW!

Not that this will help solve your Photoshop crashing problem, but I'm running Photoshop CS4 on a late-'07 iMac 2.4GHz Core2Duo with 4GB of RAM and a 1.5TB 7200 RPM HDD and it runs flawlessly. OS is the latest version of SL. Obviously, there are other variables, but I don't find anything wrong with the program.

You obviously haven't used it enough.

I use CS4 on a Mac Pro 8 core machine with 10 GB of RAM and it's the slowest, buggy POS imaginable. I guess you don't use many of Snow Leopards new features either because Photoshop regularly fails at using "spaces," is only 32 bit, needs Flash to even run and has trouble even making a simple icon preview for cover-flow. I could write for pages on what's wrong with CS4 on a Mac. Quite literally the worst designed, and yet most expensive program I own.

It may very well be worth it. I'm by no means a professional photographer but one of the reasons for my Mac purchase was Aperture. Of course iPhoto has improved significantly since then too so maybe not as easy to justify now. This looks like a massive update so old justifications go out the window.

The old version of Aperture was nothing like Photoshop and could best be described as a archiveing and light touch up program.

Err nobody has Aperture 3 yet, so you won't get a valid answer. Instead look at the docs Apple has. That being said I see it as a worthwhile investment if you have a lot of pics to manage.

Dave

So you're answer is also invalid and should be ignored? I think people can give a valid answer.. It's not THAT different from Aperture 2. I've been using Aperture for years. And yeah Aperture's not supposed to be like Photoshop. It's a workflow app and light editor and Photoshop is your retoucher.

Then again they probably write the GPS data to the database and not the photo - if true, then the third party programs still have some value. I can't wait to play with that feature! And the iPhone integration is pretty slick too! But having a GPS track log from a cheap Garmin looks to still be the best solution (other than having GPS built into the camera - hear that Nikon and Canon?!?!)

I use CS4 on a Mac Pro 8 core machine with 10 GB of RAM and it's the slowest, buggy POS imaginable. I guess you don't use many of Snow Leopards new features either because Photoshop regularly fails at using "spaces," is only 32 bit, needs Flash to even run and has trouble even making a simple icon preview for cover-flow. I could write for pages on what's wrong with CS4 on a Mac. Quite literally the worst designed, and yet most expensive program I own.

My favourite bit of 'WTF' with Photoshop is that it installs a crippled version of Opera deep within your system for the purposes of running the help files. Why?

That and the fact that you can't move the application from the default directory without some serious hackery.

Then again they probably write the GPS data to the database and not the photo - if true, then the third party programs still have some value. I can't wait to play with that feature! And the iPhone integration is pretty slick too! But having a GPS track log from a cheap Garmin looks to still be the best solution (other than having GPS built into the camera - hear that Nikon and Canon?!?!)

Multiple display support - finally!

Yup, the 'Places' feature of iPhoto stopped me looking any further at Aperture. Now it's integrated with A3, I think I'll give the trial a go.

It'll be interesting to see how it works exactly and if I still need GPSPhotoLinker.

Oh, and my cheap-off-eBay GPS logger only does GPX tracks. Does anyone know of A3 copes with these, or do I need to RTFM?

Yeah, that's the only thing i have been wondering about, when will the camera manufacturers come with a DSLR that has a GPS? This feature has been on phones for ages, and i def do not feel for having to get one more device to be able to geotag:-( Big Fail!

I was so hoping the EOS 550D would be the one to go for, it has everything i was hoping for, except geotag. Oh well, hopefully somebody can come up with a small receiver that would be placed e.g. where the ext-flash goes? Otherwise it'll probably be the EOS 600D...or 650D for me.

I tried Aperture for a year and then had the pleasure of using lightroom. Both are excellent apps. But there are some issues with Aperture that I can't get over. I have a Nehalem 8 core 2.66 mac pro with 6gb ram and a 4870. I always find that after using Aperture for an hour or so, my computer feels a lot slower. Aperture can be the ONLY program I use and it feels slower. There was an obvious underlying issue with 2.x.

And yes, you can "import" to an external folder, but not directly from a camera. You had to drag your imaes to a folder, then import into the library. Lightroom lets you do that in 1 window. I'm sure these brushes are a nice addition for some people that don't have photoshop, but for those of us that do, I'm sure we'd rather have the editing power of photoshop than use Aperture to do it.

Eitherway, as I said I like both programs. They are very similar. I just hope Aperture can fix/fixed the performance issues.

Quote:

The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

I wish Apple would make Aperture an alternative to Adobe's Photoshop. I have problems with CS4 crashing on a lean Mac Pro with 10 gigs of ram. Adobe is not the company it was in the 90's when it comes to Mac support and development and someone needs to challenge their monopoly of photo editing, desktop publishing and website authoring software. I will be taking a serious look at Aperture 3.

I hope for the same thing, but Apple doesn't even have a toe-hold in the vector graphics market. Would love an alternative to Illustrator and InDesign. It is hard to believe that is their long-term strategy...

I shoot raw and use DPP, Canon software to convert and then export to Photoshop CS2. Have a old Dual G4 Mac. Will be buying new 27 quad soon so I will need new software. Have thought of Elements because I don't need full Photoshop. Will Aperture let me directly import from DPP like Photoshop or is the conversion software good enough that I can open raw directly in Aperture. Can I adjust curves, crop, sharpen and resize with Aperture or will I still need another program? Thanks

Perfect update. Now all the typical curves adjustment, vignette control, selective sharpening and much of the look testing seemingly can be done in Aperture. That's serilously a big Wow! I also really love the possibility of version control, flickr-integration and of course GPS/Faces.

This is a really great improvement, and I think - pushing Aperture far ahead of even the Lightroom+PS combo in usability, while not compromissing one bit with the necessities of pro photographers.

Will Aperture let me directly import from DPP like Photoshop or is the conversion software good enough that I can open raw directly in Aperture. Can I adjust curves, crop, sharpen and resize with Aperture or will I still need another program? Thanks

Yes, check my update just below yours. This seems like the first opportunity for me to manage without PS in the most of my work - if the effects and curves etc are state of the art, of course (and not as the medium good Aperture 1.0 - 1.5 RAW-converter)

As for the direct import of raw-files, I guess everybody has their favorite. Suggest you test the trial and see what difference your DPP and Aperture produces

I hope Apple provides support for Olympus Pen camera, since I bought this at christmas and really annoyed, I had to use Olympus shitty software.
Looks like a great update, but update the camera compatibility please!!

Garmin Etrex - the cheapest one that will data log. Benefit - I don't have to think about it, has much better reception than dedicated devices designed to hang off camera's and battery life that lasts for DAYS. I just turn it on into track mode, make sure it's near the top of my backpack and head out.

With the way Aperture imports track logs, it's bar-none the easiest way to geotag - other than it being built into the cameras I wouldn't mess with any finicky GPS units that fit in the hot-shoe - there is absolutely no need, esp. now.

You should be able to get a good rugged weatherproof (very important!) GPS for under $200. Personally I think Garmin is the best, especially now that the Mac is no longer a second class citizen for them.

Yeah, that's the only thing i have been wondering about, when will the camera manufacturers come with a DSLR that has a GPS? This feature has been on phones for ages, and i def do not feel for having to get one more device to be able to geotag:-( Big Fail!

I was so hoping the EOS 550D would be the one to go for, it has everything i was hoping for, except geotag. Oh well, hopefully somebody can come up with a small receiver that would be placed e.g. where the ext-flash goes? Otherwise it'll probably be the EOS 600D...or 650D for me.

Being 64 bit native should help - that and in the process of moving to 64 bit I'm sure they cleaned up other issues as well.

Quote:

And yes, you can "import" to an external folder, but not directly from a camera. You had to drag your imaes to a folder, then import into the library.

Importing has been dramatically improved in version 3 - you can even write out a duplicate backup copy on import to a separate hard drive - woot! Not sure why you would want to tie up your camera importing directly from it when a card reader is not only much faster but free's your camera up for shooting, and saves the battery.

Quote:

I'm sure these brushes are a nice addition for some people that don't have photoshop, but for those of us that do, I'm sure we'd rather have the editing power of photoshop than use Aperture to do it.

I barely touch photoshop now, and with the enhancements in Aperture 3, I see the last few things I would travel to Photoshop to do as being able to be done in Aperture.

Remember the big advantage for editing in Aperture is the non-destructive edits. Edit's are recorded as instructions instead of completely new files (unlike edits in Phtotoshop) so you get basically unlimited undo with very little space consumed.

It may not be important to you - depends on your style, but I find it very liberating - it allows me to be creative and try many different versions of a file without overruning my hard drive.

Quote:

Eitherway, as I said I like both programs. They are very similar. I just hope Aperture can fix/fixed the performance issues.

Garmin Etrex - the cheapest one that will data log. Benefit - I don't have to think about it, has much better reception than dedicated devices designed to hang off camera's and battery life that lasts for DAYS. I just turn it on into track mode, make sure it's near the top of my backpack and head out.

With the way Aperture imports track logs, it's bar-none the easiest way to geotag - other than it being built into the cameras I wouldn't mess with any finicky GPS units that fit in the hot-shoe - there is absolutely no need, esp. now.

You should be able to get a good rugged weatherproof (very important!) GPS for under $200. Personally I think Garmin is the best, especially now that the Mac is no longer a second class citizen for them.

Just Googled to see what I had. It's a cheap dedicated GPS logger called a GlobalSat BT-335. Cost me about £35 from a random supplier in Honkers (via eBay, of course). Bargain. Lasts for days and uses Bluetooth to transfer the tracks (in GPX format) to my MBP.

The only downside is that it seems to append tracks together so that you end up with one huge track! Not a problem for geotagging, but looks a bit weird if you track your progress on Google Earth. Having said that, the GPX files (or is it the KML -- can't remember) are easy to split in a plain text editor.

"The new Aperture 3 database format offers many benefits, including better performance, the ability to split and merge libraries, and switch between libraries without relaunching Aperture. "

Yay!

You could sort of do that manually before, but a pain in the arse. I'm hoping this will lead to an iAperture for the iPad where I can load photos from my camera while in the field, do some initial sorting, tagging and edits, and then import the whole works to Aperture when I get home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

Shooting .jpg is going horribly wrong!

Generally, I'd agree. But recent DSLRs have so much in-camera processing to correct for lens characteristics (vignetting, etc), lighting/contrast optimization, etc; and you lose all that by shooting RAW. I could use Canon's software which can also apply many of the corrections to RAW files that my 7D can because it has Canon's lens characteristics database; but I prefer Aperture. I still shoot RAW, but I sometimes think that in some situations when I expect little to no need for much post processing that I should just shoot JPEG and let the camera apply those changes for me.

Just Googled to see what I had. It's a cheap dedicated GPS logger called a GlobalSat BT-335. Cost me about £35 from a random supplier in Honkers (via eBay, of course). Bargain. Lasts for days and uses Bluetooth to transfer the tracks (in GPX format) to my MBP.

Cool - I forgot about those. I focused on the Garmin's because when I hike the optional topo maps are very handy, so it does double duty. That and I like the weatherproof nature of it. It's good to know there is a cheap data logger that is mac compatible - mac software to pull off the track logs is always the "gotcha" item.

I sometimes think that in some situations when I expect little to no need for much post processing that I should just shoot JPEG and let the camera apply those changes for me.

As long as you are happy with being locked into what the camera did for you in JPEG then yes, that can be a viable solution. Sports photographers will often shoot JPEG so they can get more buffer space.

Me, I don't trust myself that much and I like the extra flexibility that RAW provides - that little extra safety net is very nice. If you aren't shooting rapid fire so you need the buffer space, and have the cards you can also do RAW plus JPEG.

As I've recently bought a fancy DSLR (well, technically it's not a DSLR as it's a Micro 4/3rds Lumix GH1), I'm now wondering if I should upgrade iPhoto to Aperture 3.

I have an ancient copy of Photoshop that I find a bit of a pain for retouching (usually removing things from photos, or stitching panoramas), and iPhoto for all the basic stuff.

So, what benefit would Aperture 3 give me as a fairly new and inexperienced hobbyist photographer?

Unless you're really serious about photography and have, or expect to have, a library with 10,000+ photos, I'd generally recommend sticking with iPhoto until you decide you really need Aperture. I have a DSLR, and a fairly large library, but I honestly don't use Aperture that much. The place where Aperture shines is not in tweaking photos, though it does that very well, but in organization and workflow. For example, comparing 5 similar shots from a portrait session to find the best one, etc.

A good clue as to whether you're ready for Aperture, I'd say, is whether or not you concern yourself with composition when you shoot. If you worry about stuff like the rule of thirds, lighting, depth of field, etc, then I'd say at least go to the Apple store and give it a spin. If you're more like my dad, who simply shoots hundreds of photos for the keepsake value, and isn't concerned with making them artistic, then iPhoto will almost certainly be wonderful for you.

Basically, if you find yourself fantasizing about being a professional photographer, check it out. Otherwise, it will likely end up being an expensive and confusing to use photo library.

C

A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus

Yeah, that's the only thing i have been wondering about, when will the camera manufacturers come with a DSLR that has a GPS? This feature has been on phones for ages, and i def do not feel for having to get one more device to be able to geotag:-( Big Fail!

I was so hoping the EOS 550D would be the one to go for, it has everything i was hoping for, except geotag. Oh well, hopefully somebody can come up with a small receiver that would be placed e.g. where the ext-flash goes? Otherwise it'll probably be the EOS 600D...or 650D for me.

How do you guys geotag? Thanks!

GPS in phones is easier because the phones can use cell towers to dramatically speed getting a location fix from the satellites. Without that, you can be waiting 20-40 seconds for your GPS receiver to get a fix if it's been turned off for an hour or so (because the satellite data it has will be out of date by then). So depending on the situation, you could turn on your camara and have to wait before you can shoot a picture if you want the geotag added.

I use the Amod ALG3080. It's very basic, but it's relatively cheap and very small. I just keep it clipped to the outside of my backpack. The best thing is it has huge amounts of memory. Enough to store 24x7 datapoints for a full month. And it mounts on your Mac as a flash drive. So you just drag-and-drop the track logs (which are just text files) onto your computer. No software required.

If I was a professional working with PhotoShop on a daily basis, my company would not question the cost of the software.

However, as an amateur who only needed to retouch or create images occasionally, investing in PhotoShop 7.0 was a huge expenditure for me personally. Adobe's later versions of Photoshop didn't seem to offer much more functionality, so I didn't upgrade to the CS versions.

Even so, I was rather surprised when I installed Mac OS X 10.5 and found that PhotoShop didn't work. Not, "needed to be upgraded" or "needed a converter", it simply didn't work and was "not supported'. This was less than 5 years old software, and the maker Adobe simply walked away.

I know you do not "own" software you merely "license" it, but finding that what I thought I had "bought" from Adobe looked more like a four-year rental was rather shocking. From what I understand, it would not have been too hard for Adobe to maintain compatibility.

Did I "upgrade", which basically meant buying CS again? Of course not. For my limited use, I can live with having to re-start using an older Mac, or running Gimp on Ubuntu. But I would prefer to have the pixel-basher available without a re-start, so I have been looking out for a replacement.

I must say I have been impressed by the image-editing capabilities of iPhoto so far, but they are no substitute for PhotoShop. If Apple's Aperture can deliver the results I need at an affordable price, I will no longer need to be blackmailed by Adobe.

If Apple is pitching Aperture to provide the functionality of PhotoShop at a fraction of the price, and simultaneously compensate for the problems Mac users have with Adobe products, I wish them the best of luck and I will probably buy it.